Take a piece of AI-generated work you recently created or received. An email, proposal, analysis, social post, financial summary, whatever.
Then paste it into a new chat with this prompt. After it responds, answer the questions yourself as you revise the work.
Your Prompt
Pretend you are cross-examining the person who approved this work.
Do not critique the grammar or formatting.
Instead, identify:
- What assumptions this output makes
- What context may be missing
- What sounds confident but may not actually be verified
- What a true expert in this field would question immediately
- What parts feel generic or interchangeable
- What business, legal, financial, or relational risks could exist if this is wrong
Then ask me uncomfortable questions about whether I actually understand and stand behind this output.
Against The Grain
I think the interesting tension here is that the anti-AI crowd is accidentally revealing what they think the value was all along.
“Not written with AI.”
Okay… and?
That’s a little like a CPA advertising: “We prepared this return without tax software.” “Every depreciation schedule calculated by candlelight.” “Hand-keyed straight from the shoebox for authenticity.” “This email was printed and overnighted via FedEx.”
We don’t admire architects for refusing CAD software. We don’t admire surgeons for forgoing the MRI in pre-op because “real professionals don’t use machines.”
That’s not craftsmanship. That’s just voluntarily removing leverage.
But this backlash exists because people are reacting to something real. A lot of AI-generated work feels smooth to the point of sterility. Bland. Average. Same cadence. Same structure. Same fake confidence “quietly” doing something.
My bot talking to your bot about nothing particularly earth shattering.
Luxury brands especially depend on taste, scarcity, and point of view. If AI makes everyone sound like an enthusiastic LinkedIn intern with a thesaurus subscription, then “human-made” starts sounding like “small batch bourbon.”
The mistake is assuming the tool is the problem.
The real divide isn’t AI vs no AI. It’s ownership vs intellectual outsourcing.
Anyone can buy UltraTax. Anyone can buy ChatGPT. Anyone can produce an output.
But can you explain it? Defend it? Explain why you'll sign your name and your reputation to it?
That’s the line.
The suspicious accountant in 2030 won’t be the one using AI heavily. It’ll be the one who can’t explain the return without the software open. Same for marketers who can generate endless content but can’t explain why a message works, what emotion it’s triggering, or what customer tension it resolves.
We already respect this distinction intuitively.
We admire the chef who uses modern equipment but still understands flavor. We admire the musician using digital tools who still understands timing and phrasing. We admire the CPA who can estimate tax impact in a conversation nowhere near a computer.
Because fluency matters more than which tool we use to get the job done.
And honestly, AI will increase the premium on fluency, not reduce it.
When everyone can generate outputs cheaply, judgment becomes the scarce asset.
Not “Can you fill out a tax return?” Can you defend the position? Not “Can you write copy?” Can you feel that something will move hearts and minds? Not “Can you generate analysis?” Can you connect the numbers to the predictably irrational behavior of the owner sitting across from you?
That’s where a lot of the current backlash feels shortsighted. They’re defending the process as if effort spent automatically grants more value to the idea presented.
The future probably belongs to people who use AI aggressively… but refuse to become intellectually dependent on it.
Professionals should dig deeper into their professions.
The calculator didn’t kill math. But it absolutely exposed who understood math before the calculator showed up.
